Where Have All the Protestants Gone?

NOR ^ | January 2006 | Thomas Storck

[NYer]

Has anyone noticed the almost complete disappearance of Protestants from our nation? "What!" I can hear my readers exclaim, "Storck has really gone off his rocker this time. Why, just down the street there's an Assembly of God church and two or three Baptist churches and the Methodists and so on. My cousin just left the Catholic Church to become a Protestant and my niece just married one. Moreover, evangelical Protestants have many media outlets of their own and they have great influence in the Bush Administration. They're everywhere." All this, of course, is true. Except that for some time, they no longer call themselves Protestants, but simply Christians, and increasingly they've gotten Catholics to go along with their terminology.

I recall over 10 years ago when I was a lector at Mass, for the prayer of the faithful I was supposed to read a petition that began, "That Catholics and Christians…." Of course, I inserted the word "other" before "Christians," but I doubt very many in the congregation would even have noticed had I not done so. Just the other day I saw on a Catholic website an article about a Protestant adoption agency that refused to place children with Catholic parents. The headline referred not to a Protestant adoption agency but to a Christian one. And how often do we hear of Christian bookstores or Christian radio stations or Christian schools, when everyone should know they are Protestant ones?

Now, what is wrong with this? Well, it should be obvious to any Catholic -- but probably isn't. Are only Protestants Christians? Are we Catholics not Christians, indeed the true Christians? About 30 years ago, Protestants, especially evangelicals, began to drop the term Protestant and call themselves simply Christians as a not too subtle means of suggesting that they are the true and real Christians, rather than simply the children of the breakaway Protestant revolt of the 16th century. This shift in Protestant self-identification has taken on increasingly dramatic proportions. A recent Newsweek survey (Aug. 29-Sept. 5, 2005) found that, between 1990 and 2001, the number of Americans who consider themselves "Christian" (no denomination) increased by 1,120 percent, while the number of those who self-identify as "Protestant" decreased by 270 percent.

But perhaps I am getting too worked up over a small matter. After all, are not Protestants also Christians? Yes, I do not deny that. But usually we call something by its most specific name.

Protestants are theists too, but it would surely sound odd if we were to refer to their radio stations and bookstores as theistic radio stations and theistic bookstores. Language, in order to be useful, must convey human thought and concepts in as exact a way as it can. And, in turn, our thoughts and concepts should reflect reality. As Josef Pieper noted, "if the word becomes corrupted, human existence will not remain unaffected and untainted."

Moreover, words often convey more than simple concepts. A certain word may seem only to portray reality, but in fact it does more. It adds a certain overtone and connotation. Thus, it is not a small matter whether we speak of "gays" or of homosexuals. The former term was chosen specifically to inculcate acceptance of an unnatural and immoral way of life. When I was an Episcopalian, I was careful never to speak of the Catholic Church, but of the Roman Catholic Church, as a means of limiting the universality of her claims. I always called Episcopal ministers priests, again as a means of affirming that such men really were priests, in opposition to Leo XIII's definitive judgment that Anglican orders are invalid and thus that they are in no sense priests. Perhaps because of these early experiences, I am very aware of the uses of language to prejudge and control arguments, and I am equally careful now never to call Episcopal ministers priests or refer to one as Father So-and-So. And I think we should likewise not go along with the evangelical Protestant attempt to usurp the name Christian for themselves. They are Protestants, and public discourse should not be allowed to obscure that fact.

Apparently, though, it is the case that some Protestants call themselves Christians, not out of a desire to usurp the term, but out of an immense ignorance of history. That is, they ignore history to such an extent that they really don't understand that they are Protestants. Knowing or caring little about what came before them, they act as if their nicely bound Bibles had fallen directly from Heaven and anyone could simply become a Christian with no reference to past history, ecclesiology, or theology. The period of time between the conclusion of the New Testament book of Acts and the moment that they themselves "accepted Jesus Christ as their personal Savior" means nothing. Even Luther or Calvin or John Wesley mean little to them, since they can pick up their Bibles and start Christianity over again any time they want. These souls may call themselves simply Christians in good faith, but they are largely ignorant of everything about Church history. They do not understand that Jesus Christ founded a Church, and that He wishes His followers to join themselves to that Church at the same time as they join themselves to Him. In fact, one implies and involves the other, since in Baptism we are incorporated in Christ and made members of His Church at the same time.

So let us not go along with the widespread practice of calling our separated brethren simply Christians. They are Protestants. Let us begin again to use that term. It is precise. It implies Catholic doctrine in the sense that it suggests that such people are in protest against the Church. Moreover, it forces them to define themselves in terms of, rather than independently of, the One True Church. And if we do resume referring to our separated brethren as Protestants, perhaps a few of them might even be surprised enough to ask us why -- and then, behold, a teachable moment!

[tenn2005]

You use the word 'Hate" very loosly. No one that I am aware of "hates" either a Catholic or the Catholic church. We could just as easly, and by some of your post, correctly infer that you hate us and the fact that we refuse to accept the teachings of your church. Let me lay a little information on you that might be useful in opening your eyes toward those of us who simply wear the name "Christian," nothing more and nothing less. There is a man who has been my best friend now for over 50 years. Thats right, I am an old man. We went through high school and the service together. He was Best Man at my wedding and at my side when my children were born. We have sharred in the deaths of each others parents. We have sttod side by side during good times and during bad. My children, though now grown, still refer to him as "uncle." He is, and for over 50 years has been, the closest person to me other than my wife. Guess what; he is and always has been a Catholic. You are much to hasty in making judgements my friend. I deny the validity of the Pope and your religion but that has absolutely nothing to do with you.

[Cronos]

ok, bung in Josephus as well -- is his work part of Scripture? If you say no, then would you say that all his historical details are false, JUST BASED ON THAT?

[Full Court]

Your source, please. Otherwise you are stating mistruths/Catholic bashing.

Catholic Church no longer swears by truth of the Bible By Ruth Gledhill, Religion Correspondent

THE hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church has published a teaching document instructing the faithful that some parts of the Bible are not actually true.

The Catholic bishops of England, Wales and Scotland are warning their five million worshippers, as well as any others drawn to the study of scripture, that they should not expect “total accuracy” from the Bible.

“We should not expect to find in Scripture full scientific accuracy or complete historical precision,” they say in The Gift of Scripture.

The document is timely, coming as it does amid the rise of the religious Right, in particular in the US.

Some Christians want a literal interpretation of the story of creation, as told in Genesis, taught alongside Darwin’s theory of evolution in schools, believing “intelligent design” to be an equally plausible theory of how the world began.

But the first 11 chapters of Genesis, in which two different and at times conflicting stories of creation are told, are among those that this country’s Catholic bishops insist cannot be “historical”. At most, they say, they may contain “historical traces”.

The document shows how far the Catholic Church has come since the 17th century, when Galileo was condemned as a heretic for flouting a near-universal belief in the divine inspiration of the Bible by advocating the Copernican view of the solar system.

Only a century ago, Pope Pius X condemned Modernist Catholic scholars who adapted historical-critical methods of analysing ancient literature to the Bible.

In the document, the bishops acknowledge their debt to biblical scholars. They say the Bible must be approached in the knowledge that it is “God’s word expressed in human language” and that proper acknowledgement should be given both to the word of God and its human dimensions.

They say the Church must offer the gospel in ways “appropriate to changing times, intelligible and attractive to our contemporaries”.

The Bible is true in passages relating to human salvation, they say, but continue: “We should not expect total accuracy from the Bible in other, secular matters.”

They go on to condemn [bash]fundamentalism for its “intransigent intolerance” and to warn of “significant dangers” involved in a fundamentalist approach.

“Such an approach is dangerous, for example, when people of one nation or group see in the Bible a mandate for their own superiority, and even consider themselves permitted by the Bible to use violence against others.”

Of the notorious anti-Jewish curse in Matthew 27:25, “His

examples of passages not to be taken literally, the bishops cite the early chapters of Genesis, comparing them with early creation legends from other cultures, especially from the ancient East. The bishops say it is clear that the primary purpose of these chapters was to provide religious teaching and that they could not be described as historical writing.

Similarly, they refute the apocalyptic prophecies of Revelation, the last book of the Christian Bible, in which the writer describes the work of the risen Jesus, the death of the Beast and the wedding feast of Christ the Lamb.

The bishops say: “Such symbolic language must be respected for what it is, and is not to be interpreted literally. We should not expect to discover in this book details about the end of the world, about how many will be saved and about when the end will come.”

In their foreword to the teaching document, the two most senior Catholics of the land, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, Archbishop of Westminster, and Cardinal Keith O’Brien, Archbishop of St Andrew’s and Edinburgh, explain its context.

They say people today are searching for what is worthwhile, what has real value, what can be trusted and what is really true.

The new teaching has been issued as part of the 40th anniversary celebrations of Dei Verbum, the Second Vatican Council document explaining the place of Scripture in revelation. In the past 40 years, Catholics have learnt more than ever before to cherish the Bible. “We have rediscovered the Bible as a precious treasure, both ancient and ever new.”

A Christian charity is sending a film about the Christmas story to every primary school in Britain after hearing of a young boy who asked his teacher why Mary and Joseph had named their baby after a swear word. The Breakout Trust raised £200,000 to make the 30-minute animated film, It’s a Boy. Steve Legg, head of the charity, said: “There are over 12 million children in the UK and only 756,000 of them go to church regularly.

That leaves a staggering number who are probably not receiving basic Christian teaching.”

BELIEVE IT OR NOT

UNTRUE

Genesis ii, 21-22

So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept he took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh; and the rib which the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man

Genesis iii, 16

God said to the woman [after she was beguiled by the serpent]: “I will greatly multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children, yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.”

Matthew xxvii, 25

The words of the crowd: “His blood be on us and on our children.”

Revelation xix,20

And the beast was captured, and with it the false prophet who in its presence had worked the signs by which he deceived those who had received the mark of the beast and those who worshipped its image. These two were thrown alive into the lake of fire that burns with brimstone.”

Feel free to apologize on bended knee for saying I was posting something unrtue.

Read it and weep.

[Full Court]

Did Rome condemn these bishops?

Of course not. Rome agrees with the Bishops!!

[Full Court]

if Mary didn't have sex with Joseph she sinned big time.

[Cronos]

When did the Eastern Church sack Rome?

When did the Western Church sack Constantinople? Never -- Western armies manipulated by the Doge did so, not the Western Church: understand that difference. You statement is akin to say that the Pope commanded the war in IRaq

When did the Eastern Church ignore Rome's cries for help?

Let's remove the word Church from your sentence and say the Eastern Empire -- yes, the Eastern Empire didn't help Rome against Alaric or against Attila, the Roman Patriarchy was left on it's own until the Franks came along.

Did the EOC abandon the RCC to islam?

The Eastern EMPIRE abandoned us to the Barbarian Germanics and the Arian Germanics. Do we blame the EO CHURCH? No, that would be silly -- as silly as you blaming the Catholic Church. Do we blame the Eastern EMPIRE? Not really as they couldn't help out. Ditto with the war against the Turks -- remember that the West was fighging and winning it's own Crusade in Iberia -- Spain was rid of Muslimes in the same year as Constantinople fell.

[Cronos]

If you want to scratch around digging for ants as to whether or not Constantine was a Serbian or whether or not Theodosius I was a Spaniard, feel free to do so. It's really not that important to me.

I doubt it was important to them either -- Rome had African, Roman, British, Serbian, Greek Emperors, but they were all ROMAN (History hat on now!)

[Full Court]

Exactly...and when we ask a saint to pray for us, that's exactly what we do.

You pray to the dead to ask them to pray for you.

How do you get in touch with the dead? A seance?

[MarMema]

What really set us thinking were Beslan and the death of JPII

The culture of death and the other culture of death (TROP) love it when we fight among ourselves.

[Cronos]

For Cronos to simply bat away the question regarding the meaning of Brothers and Sisters with " you don't get that it means cousin" is not much of a response.

Again you take one verse and built a case on that, not looking at the context. I'm pointing out one common error caused by not understanding the culture and language, the context of the matter. Westerners will say "Christ had half-brothers and sisters" based on THAT ONE SENTENCE completely ignorant of the truth.

Picking out random quotes from the Bible and quoting them out of context renders errors as I pointed out with another -- wives to SUBMIT to their husbands.

[Cronos]

BTW if you ask a Roman Catholic what they are more often than not they will say "Catholic" not Christian.

I'm a Roman Catholic and when I ask myself that question, I say Christian. That's not much of an argument stating that many people say they are New Yorkers or Texans or Californians and not Americans......

[Cronos]

Tenn -- if the Catholic Church is Christian heresy based on what you think happened in the 4th century, then the Oriental and Orthodox Churchs are also heresies and so are most of the Protestant Churchs. That means that 99.99 out of 100 Christians, according to you, would be heretics....

[conservonator]

Your source is a secular news paper article? Even if everything in the article was true, and I have my doubts, the fact that one Bishop went off the rails doesn't mean that he is giving the De Fide teaching of the Church. The Church is far more than one Bishop or even a group of Bishops. If you read the article, I think you'll find that the Bishops are reminding people the Scripture is the story of Salvation and that is what we should focus on.

BTW, the official teaching of the Church is quite clear on Scripture: it is the word of God, true every word. If there is conflict with what we perceive, it is our understanding, not Scripture that is in error.

From Dei Verbum

Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings (5) for the sake of salvation. Therefore "all Scripture is divinely inspired and has its use for teaching the truth and refuting error, for reformation of manners and discipline in right living, so that the man who belongs to God may be efficient and equipped for good work of every kind" (2 Tim. 3:16-17, Greek text).

[tenn2005]

That would be wrong because many either never accepted the false teachings of the Catholic church or later left the Catholic church and returned to New Testament Christianity.

[gscc]

Since you think that the newspaper article might me a fabrication - go to the source.

The Gift of Scripture

[Cronos]

AlaninSA: Share a source, not a vague reference to something like "early church writings." The Catholic Church is an ancient, large Church. Being ambiguous makes me think you're simply tossing out an accusation you are unable to back up.

Tenn2005: Do you mean to tell me that, as a Catholic you need me, a poor dumb and misinformed christian, to guide you to the source of the doctrine which you espouse? Surely you have concrete information to support your beliefs.

Really Tenn --> that's below you, first you make an accusation: the Catholic church began as a Christian heresey?  then when asked to prove it you say something really with no proof: The historical writings of the Catholic Church.  Then when asked to cite a source, you go on a tangent to cover your bluff.  You made an accusation, the onus is on YOU to prove it

[Cronos]

AlaninSA: Share a source, not a vague reference to something like "early church writings." The Catholic Church is an ancient, large Church. Being ambiguous makes me think you're simply tossing out an accusation you are unable to back up.

Tenn2005: Do you mean to tell me that, as a Catholic you need me, a poor dumb and misinformed christian, to guide you to the source of the doctrine which you espouse? Surely you have concrete information to support your beliefs.

Really Tenn --> that's below you, first you make an accusation: the Catholic church began as a Christian heresey?  then when asked to prove it you say something really with no proof: The historical writings of the Catholic Church.  Then when asked to cite a source, you go on a tangent to cover your bluff.  You made an accusation, the onus is on YOU to prove it

Then you say : "Do you deny the theachings of the Catholic church that I gave you as examples?  Do hold them to be true? If that is the case then you need to be showing where in the Bible these teachings come from. I didn't make them up. Your church did. And you need to chill out and take a deep breath."

WHAT examples?  You just made baseless accusations and hemmed and hawed when asked for proof.  Chill out when someone makes a false accusation?  Wouldn't you like us to forget that FALSE accusation, that LIE?

[Cronos]

But more to the point, one of the most vehement defenders of Apostolic succession was Irenaeus of Lyons, who was a disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of John, who was a disciple of Jesus. So three generations (and about 150 years) removed from the "beloved disciple" reclining on Jesus' breast, the true message had already been lost? And you think you've recovered it 2000 years later?

Good point Campion -- tenn, you're setting yourself up as one who would accuse the Apostles of being false?

[Cronos]

yawn, another canard. Take the Shroud of Turin -- what's the official Catholic Church's view on them? The Church does not claim it to be the Shroud of Christ -- it says it MAY be, but does not take things one way or the other. Ditto for the pieces of the true cross. And you will state it to be official Church doctrine.

[Cronos]

AlaninSA: Share a source, not a vague reference to something like "early church writings." The Catholic Church is an ancient, large Church. Being ambiguous makes me think you're simply tossing out an accusation you are unable to back up.

Tenn2005: Do you mean to tell me that, as a Catholic you need me, a poor dumb and misinformed christian, to guide you to the source of the doctrine which you espouse? Surely you have concrete information to support your beliefs.

Really Tenn --> that's below you, first you make an accusation: the Catholic church began as a Christian heresey?  then when asked to prove it you say something really with no proof: The historical writings of the Catholic Church.  Then when asked to cite a source, you go on a tangent to cover your bluff.  You made an accusation, the onus is on YOU to prove it

Then you say : "Do you deny the theachings of the Catholic church that I gave you as examples?  Do hold them to be true? If that is the case then you need to be showing where in the Bible these teachings come from. I didn't make them up. Your church did. And you need to chill out and take a deep breath."

WHAT examples?  You just made baseless accusations and hemmed and hawed when asked for proof.  Chill out when someone makes a false accusation?  Wouldn't you like us to forget that FALSE accusation, that LIE?

Then, you say: "I did not state that it was part of your church's teaching, I said that it was a fact" --> really?  Then, why did you state that it was Church doctrine as above?